Is Silver Lake’s Rowena road diet a disaster?

Traffic congestion on Rowena in 2013 after two traffic lanes were removed as part of a road diet

SILVER LAKE — It’s been more than two years since Councilman Tom LaBonge rode his bike down Rowena Avenue to celebrate the opening of new bike lanes. The lanes for cyclists were added after a nearly mile-long section of Rowena was put a on a “road diet” that left the street with only two traffic lanes instead of four. But the reduction of lanes for cars and trucks has only made congestion worse, and conditions have not improved, according to some residents. Last week, Public Works Commissioner Matt Szabo called the Rowena road diet “a bit of a disaster.”

Szabo made the remarks during a meeting in which the commissioners rejected putting the Glendale-Hyperion bridge on a road diet as requested by bike and pedestrian activists. Szabo said eliminating one lane of traffic on the bridge, which is about two blocks north of Rowena, would only create more traffic jams on nearby streets.

“The Rowena road diet is possibly not the best choice that we could have made,” said Szabo. “I can’t in good conscience vote for anything that would compound that situation. Traffic is already backed up.”

The road diet left Rowena with one traffic lane in each direction between Hyperion Avenue and Glendale Boulevard. LaBonge and others said the reduction in lanes would slow down speeding vehicles and create a safer and more pleasant environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

However, since Labonge’s initial bike ride down Rowena, some residents complain that the bike lanes are frequently empty, in part because they don’t connect to other bike lanes. Meanwhile, cars and trucks stuck in traffic have spilled over into side streets.

“Everyone on my street, Waverly Drive, hates it because we have at least 600-1,000 more cars daily on our street, sometimes speeding, sometimes blowing the stop signs,” said Jerome Courshon in an email. “Yes, we need bike lanes around the City. But removing lanes from those streets that serve as major arteries from one part of the City to another is not the solution.”

The Eastsider has contacted LaBonge’s office for a response.

The Eastsider’s Daily email digest includes all new content published on The Eastsider during the last 24 hours. Expect the digest to land in your in email in box around 7 p.m. It’s free to sign up!

161 comments

Yes. But a study of actual number of riders, not percentages. The old saying, liars figure and figures lie, applies to this issue. That is why the bicycle activists keep claiming big percentage increases in bike riding. Because when you count one bike rider is all there is one year, and the next year you count two, it sounds much more impressive to say bike riding is up by 50% than to say there are only two bike riders out there, but maybe one who rode by twice.

It is actually a success for the purpose that it was intended for. The LADOT loathes pedestrian activity and this was a pedestrian issue. They have tools to solve pedestrian deaths and danger. One tool is a signalized crosswalk. However, to put a signalized crosswalk across 4 lanes of traffic requires a LONG signalization period which actually snarls traffic MORE than the other alternative which is reducing a lane from 4 to 3. Left turns and signalized crosswalks cause much more traffic on 4 lane streets than simply creating a middle turning lane and 2 lanes for pedestrians to safely cross WITHOUT a signalized crosswalk. They chose the “lesser of two evils” and when they did they had extra space to put in bike lanes to nowhere. Of course people who are ignorant of traffic design only see empty bike lanes while ignoring the businesses and schools on the block that require frequent pedestrian crossings.

We have bike lanes now going all over the place, not to nowhere. And you don’t need a painted white stripe in order to ride a bike down the street anyway. Yet none of the bike lanes get much use, not even the one all the way down Sunset.

Bike promoters can remain in denial about why people are not biking, but it is not for lack of the lanes going anywhere. The bottom line is that people just don’t want to bike, they are going to drive no matter how many bike lanes you put in and where they go. It is not reasonable to think people can bike all over to do all the things they have to or want to do.

This is perhaps the most cogent, thoughtful comment I’ve read on these bike lanes. They are a “disaster,” but only because (a) they connect people biking to absolutely no infrastructure (and only 4 lanes of 40+ MPH traffic) on either end, (b) they come and go in a single half-mile (not mile, Eastsider) stretch, and (c) they were never intended to serve bikes, but instead to calm traffic. And on that final point, they actually DO slow down cars, which was EXACTLY THE POINT. Everyone here seems to have forgotten the two people walking across Rowena who were killed by people driving in the year prior to the installation of this “road diet.” I guess it’s easy to forget people walking who died being hit by cars. I mean, they were only “pedestrians.”

Oh, and you’re far less likely to get killed by a car going 30 MPH than one going 40 MPH, which was precisely why the city did this. Not for bikes.

Except the studies show the traffic slowed from 39-36 MPH, and that was amortized over 24 hours (with two rush-hour lock ups). What’s the damage spread on 3 mph, was there speed spot checks at other times that find cars if the data wasn’t skewed by two outlier periods. Of course, you know all this, but those facts don’t support your point of view, so why mention them, right?

Do you know why so many of us cyclists don’t use Rowena? It’s something you don’t notice as much if you’re in a car. The road is so badly potholed and pitted that it’s a danger to cyclists. Hell, even using Sunset Blvd is worth your life, between endlessly distracted people getting out or into their parked cars while blabbing on cell phones, unaware that they’ve just opened their door up right in front of a cyclist – or a car. Years ago, some guy in one of those old Caddies with the long door, opened said door up right as I was cycling downhill. I crashed into the door at about 40 mph, and my bike was smashed in half, but I kept sailing on. Luckily, I only had massive abrasions (missing all the skin on one side of my body), but no broken bones. It’s worth your life – still – to ride a bike in L.A. Those of you who said ‘bike lane to nowhere’ are entirely correct. That’s the case all over L.A. Try riding on Griffith Park Blvd, north of Sunset if you want an incredibly dangerous experience or a broken tailbone. The city added bike lanes to that road, but never fixed the road! And then there’s the residents, who put their garbage and recycling bins in the convenient bike lane. And the people who are visiting the residents, who find the bike lane very convenient for double parking. The cops don’t ticket violations of the bike lanes, either. And for the folks who live on Waverly Drive and have experienced a large uptick in diverted traffic, I feel your pain. I live on Benton Way, which is used as a shortcut between the 2 and 101 freeways. Residences have been trying to get the city to help with this problem for 30 years. We got speed humps, which only causes speeding drunks to crash their cars while heading downhill. Good luck, Rowena – neither the cyclists nor the drivers, NOR the residents are happy. Great job, L.A.!

The goal was to slow down traffic on Rowena, for that it obviously worked. This lane had nothing to do with bikes and everything to do with slowing traffic in front of Ivanhoe. I love the idea that LaBonge (who has gone after bike lanes on Glendale and opened closed road in Griffith to cars) would ride a bike to celebrate this (that guy clearly doesn’t ride a bike any other time). He was a crossing guard at Ivanhoe for his grandkids. This was all about slowing traffic for that school and very successful at that.

Opening Mt Hollywood drive to cars for a study was a stupid move but you’re blaming the wrong guy. The study was done by LA Dept. of Recs and Parks, not LaBonge. You can blame the homeowners from Beachwood Cyn and Lake Hollywood for the fiasco while you’re at it, for their attempt to divert Hollywood sign traffic away from their neighborhood.

Couldn’t they have just adjusted the traffic signals? Traffic on Rowena is a giant pain in the ass now. I live less than a mile from the Village Vet, who is on the corner of Hyperion and Rowena. Last week, at 3pm, it took me 35 minutes to take my dog in for a checkup. That’s ridiculous. Before all the construction and tweaking, it would take me about five minutes to make that trip (the vet didn’t exist then, but I go to Trader Joes all the time).

I’ve lived on Rowena have since 1999. Now its a parking lot of traffic on my block. It has increased the poor air quality, number of crazy drivers trying to get home creating dangerous driving conditions, the street lights aren’t timed properly, seldom do you see a Bicyclist. Its driving me mad.

nothing but cars jammed during the times that people all decide to drive through the area, namely rush hour. during the other 22 hours of the day? it’s pretty mellow. we just cant continue to expect that we should all be able to drive at the same time and have clear streets. that 1950’s utopian dream was taken out back and shot about 20 years ago.

Yeah and before this it was so smooth during rush hour (sarcasm obviously). It was exactly the same, except you were backed up at the lights at Rowena and Fletcher, you’re just waiting in different places and driving slower in front of an elementary school. Your drive time hasn’t changed.

Yes. Too bad we didn’t elect Szabo as our councilman last time around when he was on the ballot — at least he is being honest here and recognizes, and more importantly admits, the reality; the voters screwed up majorly and instead elected O’Farrell, who has turned out to be the worst thing the voters ever could have chosen.

O’Farrell is not uninformed. He is VERY informed. He is just wrong-thinking. Szabo is informed as well — he is very informed, one of the more experienced people from LA government. At least he is informed and honest, unlike O’Farrell.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, now, now, you’re sounding very uninformed. Rowena is in the 4th District. Take it up with your local representavtive Councilman Tom Labonge. This has nothing to do with O’Farrell or Szabo, who wasn’t even a public works commissioner at the time, and that was the 13th District race you were referring to, not the 4th. The race for the 4th District seat ended with last Tuesday’s election. You remember Tuesday, right? . And, luckily, you have someone like David Ryu to represent, on July first! Comprende, friendos? That concludes our lesson in civics for today. You’re welcome.

i run that stretch every other day and i don’t recall ever seeing a bike in the bike lanes. however, those bike lanes are really good for running in to avoid all of the cars shooting out of short rowena driveways without checking for pedestrians. so, thanks for that, i guess?

Its not only Rowena that gets few bike riders in the bike lanes. None of the bike lanes get more than an occasional rider. Anybody can see that for themselves, so don’t be relying on people who lie that there are lots and lots of bike riders out there using the lanes. Instead, just look for yourself — and while you do, look at how many use their cars instead; they have voted with their choice of transit for what they want LA to do, and it is NOT to be eliminating traffic lanes.

Harry, I challenge you to ride in to downtown on a bike one morning down 7th street, you will encounter plenty of us two wheeled fools. Seriously, any time you want to join me, I even have an extra bike.

Now that’s just b.s. If you don’t see a cyclist during the exact time of your rush hour drive that equals ‘never’? Give me a break. I’ve cycled in this area for over two decades, and there are tons of cyclists in the bike lanes. Have you never been on Sunset Blvd in Echo Park and Silver Lake? It’s always got cyclist, at nearly every hour of the day. Because it’s a long stretch of bike lanes, not the choppy, bike lanes to nowhere. Cyclists even tackle the horrible experience on Griffith Park Blvd, north of Sunset, where the city never repaired the potholes before adding bike lanes, and residents put their recycling and trash bins in those very lanes. I use the Sunset to Griffith Park Blvd route all the time, and it’s a constant stream of cyclists. Maybe you just drive at night or at the height of rush hour. But I think you know you’re being really disingenous (OK, you’re just lying). Waa waa, poor you, inconvenienced by cyclists. Quit your whining.

I don’t bike in the lanes myself– my commute is way too far for a safe bike ride, but if there were enough bike lanes I’d definitely do it. I’m not a fan of riding a bike in LA traffic– people here drive like idiots, and can often get up to very high speeds. However, I do see bikers all the time on the roads, at all hours of the day. There are loads of them on Riverside Drive, and even on the side streets like Alessandro. I also see them in high numbers in Atwater Village. I also see them regularly on Los Feliz Blvd, even with the heavy traffic often congesting that street.

I think more people would be biking if there were more safe bike lanes, but the idea of having to share a street with a steady stream of cars who are 1) probably not paying attention and 2) get annoyed by bicyclists doesn’t appeal to me. I value my safety before anything, so that’s why I drive most places. It’s definitely not because I want to be in a car all the time.

Jonny Automobile, when I lived on what was then the Griffith Park Blvd freeway, they put in stop signs ever few blocks. Voila, nice slow traffic. On my drive past the cornfield on the street that turns into Alameda, that was also a freeway until LAPD set up intermittent speed traps. Again, voila, slower saner traffic.

It’s also a problem on Virgil between Santa Monica and Beverly – terrible bottleneck in exchange for bike lanes, and the diverted traffic runs through a very heavily populated area with families and schools where children are walking. People are blowing through stop signs there too. I never see bikes during morning or evening commutes. Well, maybe I see one lady, ever, the same lady – go lady go… :/

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, those terrible businesses were already there before the road diet. And I say terrible because they are….overpriced, hipster, rich kids playing with daddies money because they went to art school and have no real careers. And the locals are not happy about their invasion, and I don’t blame them.

Yes we should complain about it -these rich kids are pricing families out of the communities they grew up
in. Oh and by the way and none of those hipsters are buying their $100 thrift shop dresses and $7 tiny coffees by riding their hipster bikes to get there they’re riding in there hipster BMWs… Nor are they spending their MONEY at the local taqueria or mom and pop store, their only concern is being seen by other hipsters at the hipster stores….just an FYI

anyone using the word “hipster” as a pejorative, immediately loses all credibility,

and yeah…. they are ALL living off Daddy’s money. none of them have a job in film, design, or entertainment. that’s why they are buying all the houses with the invisible money they don’t get paid.

just because they wear jeans and a t-shirt, doesn’t mean they are not making decent money. and they are taking that money and revitalizing an area of Los Angeles that has been run down and neglected for decades.

ever try moving that rock you live under, and talking to your new neighbors?

It’s true, the combination of the additional stop signs on Hoover and the closure of one lane each way on Virgil has resulted in wicked traffic on both roads. It makes sense to create bike lanes, to be sure, especially in a city that has been so hostile to bikes. There must be a way to do it without creating more traffic. Maybe it was a long-term plan where they don’t expect to see positive results for several years.

Anyone who takes offense to the word hipster must be taking things too personally, anyone who calls someone jealous over criticism must be finding truth in said criticism, revitalizing a neighborhood should not be exclusive to the rich and if you are working in film and television and not aware of the rich nepotism that infiltrates the industry, then you, my dear, are in denial. May I also point out that your assumptions of me are quite entertaining, thanks for the laughs,

“May I also point out that your assumptions of me are quite entertaining, thanks for the laughs”

Your assumptions about who uses bike lanes is pretty laughable and completely outdated too. Almost everyone I know who rides bikes to get around or for sport is a POC and most are social Justice warriors who are just as concerned about gentrification as you. Retire the stereotypes already.

I think the one commonality to all these comments regardless of whether someone is for or against bike lanes and the road diet is that the chief problem is drivers. Entitled people in their cars that have little or no respect for the rights of pedestrians and/or bicyclists and more or less ignore the laws of the road without consequence. The answer to that problem can’t be to appease them by giving them a sense of increased importance and priority. We all live here so we do get to make and enforce the rules. If we turn Rowena back int a four lane road, it is unlikely to stop drivers from breaking the law at will and, ultimately, will not ease traffic flow. Most studies I’ve read indicate that more lanes ends up having the opposite effect to the one intended because it induces a larger flow of cars who perceive it as a faster corridor of traffic.

On the other hand, a bike lane here and a bike lane there doesn’t have a dramatic enough impact to change the culture of the city to be more inclusive of cycling and walking as a means of ordinary, everyday travel.

There are cities around the world that have done this successfully but they seem to have done it by taking an “all-in” approach and creating an infrastructure for cycling and walking that is as functional and robust as the one that accommodates motor vehicles. Once that infrastructure was built at scale, the culture of the cities that adopted them experienced a total transformation in their orientation to commuting to the extent that they were both safer and more efficient. If biking and walking were considered viable means of everyday travel, it would induce a much larger number of people to use it for their commutes. More people on bikes or on foot means fewer people in cars. Which, I’m guessing, everyone here would agree is a good thing.

Labonge was right on this one. It’s safer for pedestrians, including kids that use the crosswalk to get to schools on both sides of the street. However, there are still accidents happening. One pedestrian was killed this past year, and others have been injured by impatient drivers. Bicycle riders have some protection from swinging car doors. People getting in and out of parked cars have protection from oncoming cars. Briefly mentioned in the article is part of the reason it may be underused: a lack of connections to other bike lanes. The streets that intersect and border this stretch of Rowena have zero bike lanes (Hyperion, Glendale and Fletcher). In other words, bicyclists are awaiting more bike lanes or bike routes.

If speeding was the issue, then why not the thousand other ways to slow down traffic? I know a guy who choked on a piece of solid food. Are we now going to put ALL our food in blenders? Focus on the real problem and solve THAT one don’t create NEW ones.

11. running over groups of a-hole cyclist who have taken up the entire street and refuse to let anyone pass
12. stopping along the street to throw a broom handle into the front spoke of these Lance Armstrong tights-wearing wanna-be’s
13. …

Rowena used to be a disaster before the road diet. It sucked to bike there, was even worse to walk due to a lack of safe crossings (with some tragedies resulting from drivers hitting people walking). Now the street is better, but it is true that we need bike lanes on fletcher to help link Rowena lanes to river path and lanes on eagle rock.

Precisely. I’m so tired of the whiners. Rowena travel time hasn’t changed a bit since before the bike lanes. And if that means some traffic is peeling off into the connecting streets – too bad. This is a big city, but Rowena is a small city street, and will NEVER be able to handle the traffic that has been using it to connect to the freeway. The problem is the amount of single occupancy cars, which has massively increased over the last 30 years. I’m both a cyclist and a car user (too often a single occupant in said car), and it doesn’t take me any more time to use Rowena now than it did before the ‘road diet’. We just stop in different places. The solution IS to connect the bike lanes to connecting streets with bike lanes AND fix the potholes which have consistently driven away cyclists. The road has become a lot safer for the crosswalks and for the kids in the two schools on this street. Better yet – let’s close Rowena to car traffic, and keep it for pedestrians and cyclists. Did I just hear heads explode? My work is done.

You could just as easily have posted an article of two random locals in the neighborhood saying “it seems like traffic flows at safer speeds now, I feel safer cycling and crossing at the unmarked crosswalks, and I see hundreds more cyclists and pedestrians using the street every week than I did before… the road diet is a huge success!”

But how about we just look at the actual traffic data… is that too much to ask? How many accidents before/after the the road diet? How many serious injuries from those accidents before/after the road diet? What are the average speeds before/after the road diet? What are the top speeds? What are the ped/bike/car counts before/after the road diet?

Are there any studies being done on this? I don’t think there’s any question that congestion on Rowena (or York, or Colorado, …) has increased, and my own eyes tell me that the bike lanes are seldom used. That being said, I don’t want to form a hard opinion based on just what I’m seeing. I’d love to see some hard data on all the questions you’re asking too. If it turns out that, post road diet, bike ridership is up, accidents down, business improving, etc etc etc, then I guess I’ll be pro bike lane. Right now it just seems like a pain in the ass though. The city really needs to do a post road diet study. I’m VERY curious to see the results.

For what it’s worth (not much!), my opinion regarding bike lanes has been mostly “meh”. Maybe it’s made rush hour traffic worse, but rush hour traffic is always bad. During off hours, going down York or Colorado is the same as it’s ever been for me.

gee…. turns out that making things easier and more comfortable for pedestrians improves business. who’d a thunk it. I would have just assumed that making things dangerous and having speeding cut through traffic is the answer. humpf.

You get presented data and your response is they cooked the books? Well enlighten us then because the road diet opposition so far refuses to make use of any documented facts, only anecdotes about running late for work. Can you prove Rowena is less safe than it was before the road diet? Didn’t think so.

You know I’m not sure, but I would imagine a lot of these things are being tracked by LADOT and other local agencies (accidents, traffic counts, avg. speeds, etc.) At the very least, I think Eastsider should do a little homework and request actual data before writing an article based on conjecture, right?

Anyway, I believe public safety was the primary reason for the road diet… the neighborhood had been complaining about speeding for years, and a young woman was killed crossing the street here not too long ago. The bike lanes (and easier parallel parking for small businesses) were more or less just bonuses (depending on how you look at it.)

I suspect bike ridership isn’t as common on this stretch as say Sunset or Silver Lake blvd. because it’s isolated from any other bike routes by some pretty chaotic, high speed roads (Glendale, Rowena Bridge, Hyperion, etc.) But if accidents and speeding are down, that would seem like a success in my book. Hard to say though, without the traffic data.

I wonder if there’s a way to look these numbers up ourselves. I saw the numbers posted on the LADOTBikeBlog post that someone linked to. Is that an official LADOT affiliated blog? It’s on WordPress, so kinda hard to tell (also, the link to where they got their data from is broken). Personally, I don’t think the road diet had much to do with new businesses opening up on York. The area was changing road diet or not. Put a road diet on Florence between Western and Fig and I doubt we see the same results, but whatever. Obviously, the road diet didn’t HURT business like detractors said it would. Seeing that this is a rather divisive issue, some concrete data directly from the city would be very useful.

You’re right – actual before and after hard data would be nice. But I’m sure also not going to trust random ‘we had cyclists because they slow our commute’ comments, either. The people who complain the most about the road diet are pretty much cyclist haters anyway, juding from a lot of the comments. If they run across one poorly behaving cyclist, then all cyclists are asshats. Here’s an idea – make the city repair Rowena so that it’s safe for cyclists and automobiles.

Also, has everyone forgotten that the traffic on that street got far worse due to the construction project? My commute on Rowena – in a car – didn’t change at all, time-wise after the road diet. A lot of the frustration is perception of time, rather than reality. The construction, on the other hand, just screwed everyone. But I guess it’s for a good reason. So they can drain the reservoir, unhook it from the drinking water system, then fill it back up again … uh, oh.

I bike to work everyday for the past 15 years and I have seen more and more bikes in the bike lanes. I think sharing the road doesn’t work well. I have to share the road on part of my commute and the number of cars that honk at me, pass very close is immense. If you don’t build the bike lanes, people won’t bike. You have to build it and they will come.

Building bike lanes as a supplement to relieve traffic is something everyone would easily get behind. Taking away car lanes to do so, and thus creating a new problem is why these and other “road diets” are disasters.

The biking lobby is going to have to stop punishing drivers as their tactic for getting bike lanes.

You have it backwards. The roads are first and foremost for the mobility of people. People traveled roads for thousands of years before the automobile PUNISHED people who were not in cars. 4 car lanes on a road crowds out every other mode of travel and bloodies anyone who tries to be in the same space.

This is a brief period of time in human history where we are so selfish and ignorant as to decide that the public space should be dictated by “might is right” principles. It wont be like this in the future.

I ride my bike to work daily, and have to use the lane for a few miles. I get honked at about once every six months (on Fletcher, too!). I’m surprised by how rare it is. That said, I hate riding on Fletcher with no bike lanes. It’s tense, and I can’t shake the feeling that the drivers want me off the road. So, in conclusion, my psychological experience isn’t totally positive, but my actual experience is pretty smooth.

Anyway, yeah, build it and they will come. And, as a recent article about Long Beach noted, it can take a couple years to see the effects. Plus, when a lane goes nowhere, as Rowena does, it’s not an enticing route.

A woman died, people have been hit. This was a choice between installing a SIGNALIZED crosswalk OR a 2 lane config that did not require signalization to put in a crosswalk. The LADOT will not put in crosswalks across 4 lanes because drivers are too ignorant and selfish to look out for pedestrians. Too many accidents were occurring.

The problem is that putting in a signalized crosswalk means a far greater traffic snarl than putting in a road diet. That was the choice made here. The bike lanes are there because there was space but at pretty useless because they dont connect to anything.

It is difficult for the average person or journalist to actually delve into this shit but that is the reality. IF they ever decide to go to a 4 lane config, they will be forced to put in a SIGNALIZED crosswalk and that will cause far greater delay in traffic because of the pedestrian density and frequency in this area.

Good point. When I drive on Rowena I see people desperately running across the road to get to restaurants. There’s a HUGE amount of space between the intersections. If they truly want a safe, friendly street, they need more crosswalks (signalized ones).

I agree with you on that one. Sorry, Rowena drivers, but there should be an increase in marked crosswalks and possibly at least one new stop sign. Why are cars more important that bikes … and peoples’ lives? I say that as a car driver (on Rowena) and a cyclist and a pedestrian (who freaks out every time I have to park across the street from one of the restaurants on Rowena – scary as hell to use unmarked crosswalks, which is every place a street intersects).

True. But it’s fair to point out that, just according to the law, pedestrians have right of way when crossing the street whether a signal is present or not. One of the problems is that either many drivers are unaware of this part of the law or simply ignore it. This is just a guess but by taking lanes away and turning them into dedicated bike lanes, I think the presumption is that it forces drivers to pay more attention to other, more vulnerable users of the road.

I use the bike lanes on Rowena pretty much every day, however, and I often see pedestrians standing at the corner waiting for an opportunity to cross and almost invariably cars simply don’t stop. Laughably, I’ll actually stop for the pedestrian on my bike but it seems to have little effect on drivers who, understandably, are always in a rush to get from A to B.

While the traffic has worsened, I do think that the road diet has succeeded in making it a safer street. As another commenter mentioned, there are schools on both sides of the streets. The safety of the children in these schools was a huge factor in the implementation of the road diet. It is not a total failure.

The road diet has been a resounding success in my opinion. It slows down traffic and makes for a much more walkable/bikeable street.

It’s unbelievable how many Angelenos feel that they have a right to speed down every street, unimpeded. It’s this reasoning that has gotten us where we are in the 2015. Constant gridlock across all of the Southland.

It’s not the size of the roads. It’s the number of cars.

Get out of your car: walk, ride a bike, or take a bus. The rest of us are sick of choking on your exhaust fumes.

What I don’t get is: the speeding doesn’t even lower the travel time in most cases.I know this as an experienced driver! Arguably by creating bottlenecks around the stops it increases them. Why doesn’t every driver intuitively understand this?!

Szabo is full of crap and spreading FUD without any facts or figures to back it up.

There has always been traffic on this street. If you want to say it’s worse now then what is your proof? I drive this street regularly and have noticed no difference in travel time at all on this stretch.

As a bike commuter who regularly uses one of the most successful road diets around (on 7th going into downtown) (full of cyclists every morning), I hate that Rowena takes away from those successes.

First of all this tiny block has nothing to do with slowing you up, you’re going to be stuck in traffic before this or after this no matter what. Have you noticed how backed up Riverside is now that there is a left turn light?

This lane was lobbied for by LaBonge simply to slow traffic in Ivanhoe Elementary where LaBonge was a crossing guard for his grandkids, for that it has been very successful, and who doesn’t support that!

This lane does very little for a cyclist. I regularly take it on my trip home from Trader Joe’s to East of Glendale blvd/Brier. When the lane opens up after Glendale there is no room for a bike, I’m forced to take the lane, with cars driving well over the speed limit, all so they can go sit and a series of lights at Glendale, Riverside etc…

Again, where do you whiners think you’re going to go if this was back to two lanes? You’re just going to wait at the lights either way. People in cars really struggle with logic and reason.

I live, walk, and drive on Rowena everyday. I also bicycle on it. Once I read a comment which said “no one bikes on it” which is probably the same person who denies droughts because some days it rains, or global warming because it’s not that warm where they live.

Anyway, as I walked two blocks I was passed by ten bicycles.. More importantly, in the two years before the road diet there was at least one pedestrian death, one car smashing into a building, and I saw three people (two on bikes, one pedestrian) hit by speeding cars. Since the road diet it’s no longer Rowena Speedway and people aren’t being run over left and right. From my standpoint it’s a smashing (or lack thereof) success!

Again, please explain to us how you intend to reduce fatal accidents without slowing down speeding cars? As others have stated, putting in a traffic signal would’ve slowed end-to-end travel even more than this road diet. Bottom line: no one needs to be driving faster than 25mph on a windy street that fronts several local businesses and a primary school.

I’m guessing most of you complainers just suck at driving. Your the type I see in traffic all the time, racing to the next red light, as if you’ll somehow get there any faster by hitting 40 for a brief second before you have to slam on your brakes (instead of cruising at a steady clip of 20-30mph, like a boss.)

Pro tip: you never will. Just put on some King Tubby and relax a little, it’s not a race.

You do not reduce fatal accidents by bringing bicycles into the streets. We have known for over 100 years, that incompatible modes of transportation should not share the same Right of Way. These Bike lanes are actually part of the same Right of Way and by encouraging more bike riding in traffic, we know we are increasing the number of injuries and deaths.

Everybody’s a traffic expert. Anyway, yeah the same old arguments that the bike lanes are “never used.” This wasn’t a bike project, and the bike lanes don’t connect to anything, That said, the bike lane looks empty but there is a steady stream, the bicyclists just don’t get stuck in traffic like the cars.

So let’s hear the source of Matt Szabo’s comment – did he study the street or is this more speculation? How is he measuring “disaster” compared to what the situation was before?

Los Angeles Public Works Commissioner Matt Szabo is a jerk, he shows no compassion for human lives lost due to traffic violence. This was a project installed because someone died. What an idiot Mr. Szabo is!

i love biking these rowena road diet bike lanes – but they dont extend far enough to be impactful. they end before fletcher and dont even make it to hyperion. we need a complete network of bike lanes in order to get people to use them. biking, walking and transit are the solution to congestion. there is not enough room on our roads for cars.

Totally agree. I’m a semi frequent bike rider but I’ve only used the Rowena bike lane once. They don’t easily connect to any of the longer surrounding bike lanes (Silver Lake Blvd., LA River, GP Blvd.) so it’s mostly ineffective and I’m not surprised at all that very few people seem to use it. There’s got to be a better network of lanes bc the patchwork system of a mile here, there, and way over there is not good for bikers and in this particular case it gives drivers a reason to be actually angry which will make the development of other lanes harder in the future.

We’ve already tried the motorists preferred approach here (more lanes, less crosswalks) and it certainly didn’t make traffic flow any smoother… it just made walking and cycling miserable, and now most people drive just to travel a couple blocks in this city.

Smart drivers will now add a few extra minutes to the time they plan on for their commute, rather than gnashing their teeth because the City is finally recognizing that streets are for EVERYONE. Jonny Automobile and G-force are right on. Rowena before the road diet was multiple lanes of drivers not only speeding but constantly weaving in and out of lanes in order to go even faster. I’m sorry that residents of side streets like Waverley don’t appreciate the increase in traffic — but folks, you knowingly chose to settle in one of the biggest, densest cities in the world. Traffic is a fact of life everywhere in L.A. One of the best reasons for creating road diets and bike lanes is the long range goal of encouraging our city to become less car-centric. As people keep saying, if you build the bike lanes, they will come. If you make streets like Rowena, Figueroa, Colorado and Sunset more pleasant and safe to walk and ride on, more people will leave their cars at home. If you don’t like traffic on your street, think about being part of the solution.

I do ride these bike lanes, maybe y’all don’t notice me. And as a pedestrian, it’s way safer crossing now all along Rowena (Broome St., Pilates Bodyshop, etc.). THe bike lanes are only the beginning, and should be a protected bike lane eventually, this is a school area people! I see little kids running across that street with their parents in tow all the time. Sorry, if you think I don’t also drive this stretch, you’re wrong — and I wait patiently and listen to the radio. You sould too. Everybody chill. This was an improvement for the local neighborhood and a success for safety, biking, and quality of life. Yay! Now if you can’t love yourself, how in the hell are you gonna love somebody else, can I get an Amen up in here?

To the people on Waverly, it sucks for you… yea, but some of you are assholes. For those of us that cut through on your street… it’s not our fault you bought million dollar homes there. Also, why would anyone in their right mind spend a million dollars on a home located on a street lined with power transformers? It’s a public street, get over it.

I can understand your frustration but can I just say thank you for the sacrifice? I ride my bike through there every day and at least once a day something happens where I think–jeez–these bikes lanes just saved my ass. So I really appreciate the fact that you might have a longer commute in exchange for me not dying or ending up in a body cast. Really.

My child and I ride in the bike lanes every day twice a day and we see a cyclist in them almost every time we’re in those lanes. Four-lane roads without left turn lanes are inherently dangerous. Getting somewhere 20 seconds faster is not worth killing a kid in front of their elementary school. Get your priorities right. We need to get protected bike lanes within a mile of all schools so kids can bike and walk to school like we did as children instead of being chauffeured around like fat, spoiled, precious little darlings everywhere. Support safe routes to all schools!

Sensible. I walk my neighborhood every day, which has a much greater exposure to both cars and cyclists. LA cyclists are an extremely entitled class of people. Pious drivers on bikes with no lights, helmets or regards for the rules of the road, which apply to bikers as well as drivers. #getoffyourhighhorse

Really Marty? Would you send a child into today’s LA traffic? Cars go faster today, we have roadway designs that speed cars up, no trolley tracks to contend with in most of the city anymore, more people drive (because fewer take transit)…. a lot of things have changed since you were a kid. Let the bike lanes stay, they’re saving us from ourselves.

Someone can like a road diet and never use a bike. Whether it’s the fact that it is easier to parallel park, or to make a left turn without getting rear-ended, or safer to cross the street at unmarked crosswalks, or the fact that the street is just plain safer.

Drivers want to speed through and complain. Driving is a privilege–not a right. If you hate traffic, ride a bike! I do, and i’m tired of hearing drivers complain. YOU are traffic! Drive less cars, and traffic disappears…

This article will never make it into the Administrative Record for The Mobility Plan 2035 which is based on false data and wishful thinking unless we take the steps to make certain it gets into the Administrative Record. Rather, the City proclaims that all its plans, no matter how poorly conceived and no matter how harmful, to be a huge successes.

You can do something. We can all put this article and the prior one about the opening of the Bike Lanes into the Administrative Record by emailing the LINK and your comments as I show below. If you have personal experience with this Bike Lane, then write that in the text of your email. Only by doing this can you have your testimony and these documents before the Court when some one takes the time and money to sue the City over the fatally flawed Mobility Plan 2035.

Here is where to email the link http://bit.ly/1HqsLZk and your testimony about what you have witnessed. Say you want it included in the administrative record for Mobility Plan 2035

In the last decade, Los Angeles had the smallest population increase of any decade since 1890 to 1900. In the decade between 1890-1900, we added only 52,084 people. However, that increase more than doubled the size of LA.

Thus, the US Census shows that the rate of LA’s population increase is drastically slowing. In the prior decade, LA grew by less than 100,000 ppl.

The Mobility Plan 2035 then invents a population increase, while ignoring the demographic evidence, that LA will not experience an increase in its rate of growth and it more likely to grow at a slower rate and it could begin to loose population.

Since reliable demographic data shows that Los Angeles is very unlikely to experience a significant population increase, we will not be forced to revert to using bicycles. The other factor which could force Angelenos to significantly increase reliance on bicycles is a reduction in the standard of living so that people cannot afford to own and drive cars.

There is some evidence suggesting that L.A. may become significantly poorer over the next few decades. Hollywood has lost a significant portion of its population since 2000. Those who cannot afford to move away from the congestion and increased air pollution are Hollywood are “Default Tenants,” i.e. people who cannot afford to live in a better place. This applies to CD 13 in the Flats and not to the Hills – yet.

When one monetized Time, one realizes that poor people who ride bicycles and use mass transit pay a lot more from their transportation and someone who owns a car. Both modes are much more time consuming and when one calculates the monetary value of their time, one sees that riding a bike and using mass transit has higher costs than people realize.

The prime movers behind more Bike Lanes and more mass transit as the real estate developers who want more high rise projects and more InFill projects to greatly increase the population density. Studies have shown that people respond to Buzz Words and to “Buzz Ideas” which are superficial beliefs. The belief that subways will reduce surface traffic is one of them. The opposite is true. The same is true for Bike Lanes; they are a Buzz Idea that they will be Safer and reduce traffic congestion. In reality, they are more dangerous and increase congestion

Real estate developers are simple responding to market demand. That’s why they’re building more housing. Bike lanes have little to do with it. And the only reason population is dropping in places like Hollywood, despite development, is gentrification (smaller, wealthier households replacing larger, poorer ones.) If people were actually leaving in large numbers due to a distaste for urban living, then why do rents continue to climb?

And your thoughts on traffic safety are simply uninformed. Look at some traffic studies. Road diets and bike lanes do indeed slow traffic and make cities safer. If even the federal highway administration and LADOT agree they can reduce accidents, that says quite a lot (not very progressive transit agencies by any stretch of the imagination.)

RE: “when one monetized time”. When did this happen exactly? Human life being finite a it is, the truth that “time is money” has always been true since the dawn of time. But the value of what you do with that time is up to interpretation. Spending a little more time riding a bike or walking may actually have more value to people that spending a little less time by driving a car.

Beyond that, if you’re suggesting that efficiency is the primary need in human environments, then that logic would favor eliminating pedestrians and bicycles altogether.

The reality is that traffic has long been an issue in Los Angeles as it is in many other densely populated large urban areas. And even if the population growth rate slows, as it stands traffic is only going to get worse not better. So I don’t see where simply throwing up our hands and saying single driver motor vehicles are the reality and we should just do whatever we can to make their drive times easier and more palatable regardless of the cost to everyone else. The only viable solution is to discover more ways of getting people out of their cars and using other forms of transportation. There’s a limit to how many roads we can build and most of the low hanging fruit there has long been plucked. If there’s white space in the traffic alleviation category, it’s in getting people out of their cars. But first you have to create an infrastructure that not only permits daily, functional travel by bike and foot but actually makes it attractive to do so.

If time and money are the same thing then I can say this–biking cross town through Hollywood during rush hour commute times will most often save you a lot of it. Though it may cost you life and limb to do it. I bike east-west every day during these times and I regularly beat loads of cars stopped in jams whether there is a bike lane in place or not. Meaning–the absence of a bike lane does not necessarily and magically make traffic go faster. If anything, it’s hard to see a difference between traffic on streets with bike lanes and those without.

So not only would I suggest not eliminating the Rowena road diet (a terrible name for that by the way since I’ve never heard of a diet that lasts forever) I would say the only way it will work is if you augment it by creating bike lanes and pedestrian crossings and walkways everywhere across all of Los Angeles. In cities that have taken the all or nothing approach, the change that occurs is dramatic. And it’s for the better. Not only do people in those cities seem to have more time but the time they have is better spent.

There is no ONE problem, but many contributing. However, there is one MAIN problem, and that is too many SINGLE OCCUPANCY AUTOMOBILES. The time has come to admit that this type of transportation is antiquated – mainly because it is so destructive to the environment and it lowers the quality of life of the community. Every street needs a road diet… rather a “car” diet.

If our public transportation was better, it would help too. There are cities that do just fine without loads of cars in them all over Europe, also here, like NYC and San Francisco (I’m sure there are others but I can’t think of them right now). But their common denominator is that they have excellent public transportation. I grew up in NYC and hardly anyone there drives, except for commuters and people from out of town. It’s such a hassle to deal with a car there that life is easier when you use the buses, taxis, and subways. In Amsterdam, I never saw so many bicyclists in my entire life– it seemed like the whole city was biking, and in major roads, too. I’d give up my car in a heartbeat if there were better options for getting around in LA, but right now, there just aren’t.

Aside from a vocal but conspicuous miinority of cyclists, there has been virtually ZERO demand for “road diets” and introduction of bike lanes in NELA. Nonetheless, there is a demand for more recreational cycling paths that I believe are the logical steppingstones to more fundamental changes to our community’s traffic corridors. People who have the opportunity to embrace recreational cycling are simply more likely to consider cycling as a remedy for more practical needs or problems. IMO, the L.A. river represents that intermediate step towards a more fundamental expansion of cycling as a traffic remedy. By simply being intentional about directly connecting L.A. river cycling paths to major traffic corridors along the way, we introduce cycling as a practical alternative to driving in those communities. Otherwise, the self-righteous and shaming approach currently being employed by the cycling lobby is only polarizing a community that I believe shares a common goal of decreasing traffic congestion with health and environmentally-friendly strategies if not solutions.

Btw, cyclists are guilty of a public-relations disaster by not using recently-installed bike-lanes on Rowena and Glendale Blvd. in Atwater and consistently violating traffic rules like running STOP signs with impunity. If cyclists want to recapture their youth by riding like reckless 12-year-olds, they should stick to the surrounding dirt trails and the L.A. river. Otherwise, they should model the presumably safe andresponsible cycling that they are promoting in our neighborhoods. It’s just Common Sense IF that is their true goal.

Someone can like a road diet and never use a bike. Whether it’s the fact that it is easier to parallel park, or to make a left turn without getting rear-ended, or safer to cross the street at unmarked crosswalks, or the fact that the street is just plain safer.

Also, how are drivers not at a public-relations disaster by crashing into people, buildings, and each other on a daily basis? We forgive the many instances of drivers violating traffic laws, often with tragic results, but a cyclist running a stop sign is our social priority? Something tells me we have it backwards.

I’ll agree with you that cyclists are often their own worst enemy in this case. Not all of them of course but a particular sub-species of them. I ride every day but I do my level best to stop at intersections and follow the same laws that all vehicles are subject to. If someone else gets to the stop sign before me, they go first.

Pretty much every day I see bike riders blowing through those intersections with a righteous indignation and I always think to myself how that is not doing me any favors.

It is fair to point out though that an equal if not larger number of automobile drivers have equal disdain for things like stop signs and posted speed limits.

In any event, if bike riders want to change people’s minds about how we see our roads and who should have the right to use them, they would do well to act courteously, politely and be disciplined about following all of the road laws (unless to do so would put them at great risk.) Otherwise, those opposed will always be apt to use the poor habits of cyclists as an argument against them.

Reward businesses that allow their employees to work from home tax breaks.
I and many of my friends all work in the field of graphic and clothing design. There is absolutely no reason for us to drive to an office five or six days a week to sit at a computer when the job could be done from a home office.
If employers stopped being so paranoid about being taken advantage of and instead utilized all of the fantastic communication technology available to monitor their staff we would see some results regarding road congestion in this city.

Bike lanes will not work until Markets and other services are moved into one location and are not all spread out. Markets and services need to be closer to homes. But there is no way to move work closer to home.

That is why bike lanes will not work in Los Angeles.

Bike lanes do make bicycling safer but at what expense? The removal of car lanes most of the time is not the answer. Where bike lanes do not remove a car lane, bike lanes work. But until the location of stores and services move closer to homes bicycling is not an option for most people.

Low income areas have little or no supermarkets. People have to drive miles to a decent market. Small markets like Walmart rmarket in Chinatown serve a purpose. They provide fresh and quality produce and meat. That is very hard to find in low income areas.

Driving miles to a supermarket or services is necessary. Until markets and services are moved closer to homes bicycling will not work. Until then removing car lanes is just plain wrong!!

I used to take the Waverly Drive “High Road” up and over Rowena from Hyperion to Glendale when traffic was a mess. But now, it’s always a mess, and scenic Waverly Drive is now backed up with cars, speeding, and sometimes blowing stop signs obscured by trees.

Thermodynamics says energy just moves from one place to another, i.e., it’s a constant. Traffic is a constant. Place it on a diet in one place, it will binge somewhere else. See also: Waze. We’re relocated the danger from one place to another, we haven’t removed it. There are no easy solutions to complex problems. Something dunderhead professional politicians have yet to figure out.

Hi! I drive Rowena between Glendale and Hyperion 2 times per day, 6 days per week. I see cyclists a couple of times each week.. The second time each day I drive this route is after darkness has fallen…9 pm-ish…and I want to point out that when I do see a cyclist at that time they are almost never sporting more than the tiniest little red light and often have no reflectors. Such supports my theory that it’s largely kewks using the bike lanes, as more competent people prefer cars and have cars. It is noble for a society to cater to it’
s weaker members, but not the kewks! I support the idea that traffic should be slowed passing Ivanhoe and suggest a return to 4 lanes with some new and creative ideas to slow things down in front of Ivanhoe, and/or install speed measuring signs which seem to work pretty well.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to be so angry about it. If the roads aren’t safer with the bike lanes on them, then maybe people driving cars are the real problem and we should eliminate their right to drive altogether. What do you suggest as a fix?

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *